You know what doesn't need you to darken a whole room to surround yourself with a video game space? Head-mounted displays.

Seriously, Microsoft, stop playing around with projectors and start making some virtual reality helmets, or you will get left behind by Oculus and Valve in the field of fully immersive VR, and by Google in the field of "plastering shiny pictures over your living room" kind of AR.

I'd much rather have a projector somewhere on my wall so I can sit down and play as opposed to having to fit a headset over my head.

I would much rather just put on a pair of goggles so I can sit down an play, as opposed to having to set up a projector system on my ceiling, and to flawlessly darken my whole living room every time I want to play.

See, I can also make technologies sound bothersome by adding entirely unnecessary loaded terms to them.

Shall I also throw in a futuristic picture with a photogenic 30something guy in a suit confidently smiling while looking through a sleek, lightweight VR visor, next to an amateur Holodeck prototype with experimenters tripping over wires while trying to align motion sensors and projectors with TV screens?

Ok, so you simply don't get it. :) Projector or ambilight simply puts 2D image on the wall, and because of furniture etc. it will look like sh!t. Now this lttle thing scans the room, and projects image accordingly to how furniture etc. is placed, so you get 3D like effect.

No, no. THAT part I got.

Why you'd bother is what I don't get, because the effect is really not that impressive at all.

As for furniture... yes, to have a very large image projected on a wall it should be blank, and sure, maybe not everybody has all that room... but this is Kinect we're talking about, isn't it?

Right. So if you've got a room big and deep enough for Kinect to work correctly anyway, you probably don't need this gimmick.

Perhaps it's just more impressive in person. That video did nothing for me whatsoever. Then again, I use a projector for gaming, so perhaps I'm just already used to having an immersive, big picture feeling when I play.

Sorry, but I love this thing. It can be frustrating to play a game like Halo / Call of Duty and not be able to use the peripheral vision you would naturally have in that situation. This solves that issue. It's not a matter of "Bigger Screen Size" and more an issue of "What can I see out of the corner of my eye?".

May not be a purchase for this generation of console, since we're so close to the next iteration. Will definitely pick up for the next... (sigh) "Nextbox".

This is the Microsoft Research's prototype system, not a finished product. I'm not sure whether the final version will be compatible with Windows. We don't get much PC games that use Kinect for Windows, so...

OniaPL:I bet 50 bucks that this will be messy and won't work as intended.

True, but that is how new technology works.

Too many people are or at least act like perfectionists these days.

Nothing is ever totally perfect when it is first made. That is why there are so many iterations of different forms of technology.

If as many people that tend to say such negative things that also are into technology, said such things back when computers first came into existence, and actually were impactful, we wouldn't have the computer tech of today.

"Oh look how stupid it is, it is so big it takes up whole rooms and it is so slow and does hardly anything" -- Negative tech people about the first computers.

OniaPL:I bet 50 bucks that this will be messy and won't work as intended.

True, but that is how new technology works.

Too many people are or at least act like perfectionists these days.

Nothing is ever totally perfect when it is first made. That is why there are so many iterations of different forms of technology.

If as many people that tend to say such negative things that also are into technology, said such things back when computers first came into existence, and actually were impactful, we wouldn't have the computer tech of today.

"Oh look how stupid it is, it is so big it takes up whole rooms and it is so slow and does hardly anything" -- Negative tech people about the first computers.

True, but the problem is that this is something that Microsoft is trying to sell to us customers in it's "probably messy" form. The fact that it might be better in the future with a new iteration doesn't mean that we should let it slide, saying "it will get better".

And as you said, that's the way it is with technology. Hell, that's the way it is with science; first there was Lamarck's theory of evolution, then Darwin's, and now we have the theory of modern evolutionary synthesis. But what I want to convey to you is that it is not my position as a customer to buy the product and then have to go through all the iterations. I want a product that works without bigger difficulties.

Microsoft doesn't really have a good track record with this. Their current gen consoles turned into bricks thanks to red rings of death, their Kinect at least had lots of problems working in different kinds of living rooms and lighting (I'm not informed on it's current situation so I can't talk about that) and so on.

Don't get me wrong though, I am excited for this because it at least seems like a desirable piece of gaming technology to me (which is quite new as I haven't liked motion controllers, touch screens and all the other gimmicks released in the past years).

Nothing is ever totally perfect when it is first made. That is way there are so many iterations of different forms of technology.

If as many people that tend to say such negative things that also are into technology, said such things back when computers first came into existence, and actually were impactful, we wouldn't have the computer tech of today.

"Oh look how stupid it is, it is so big it takes up whole rooms and it is so slow and does hardly anything" -- Negative tech people about the first computers.

And some technologies really are just dead ends.

I would normally agree with you. I was also annoyed at the same kind of people a few months ago, who were dismissing the news of the Oculus Rift just because A) It must be exactly as bad as the Virtual Boy in 1995 and B) it still won't feel EXACTLY like you are inside the game world, so then why bother putting on 100% visually immersive goggles with complete field of view, if we might as well continue staring at rectangular monitors on our desks?

Yet here I am, still talking about VR in a (directly) unrelated topic. Because while every technology is imperfect first, some show more potential for growth than others.

Back in the days, the pioneers of aviation were debating between heavier-than-air and lighter-than-air systems. You could say that they both had potential to improve, and that's certainly know. But by now we know, that one of them had much more potential to grow than the other.

It's the same deal with video game immersion. We have two paths ahead: virtuality, and simulated environments. The Matrix, or the Holodeck. If they were perfect, they were effectively the same thing, but they are aren't. And right now, this method, "the Holodeck", seems to be a lot more like lighter-than-air flying. Inherently more space-consuming, inconvinient, and starting with a handicap.

Agreed. On one hand, it can be argued that big is really nice and the tech is great, but like Narcogen said, go get a good projector. And as for tech, I'm a cynic on that aspect as these sort of things tend to get abused as a cash cow - I'm looking at you, Armoured Battalion.

Ok, so you simply don't get it. :) Projector or ambilight simply puts 2D image on the wall, and because of furniture etc. it will look like sh!t. Now this lttle thing scans the room, and projects image accordingly to how furniture etc. is placed, so you get 3D like effect.

Sorry, still don't see the difference. It could be how I personally define 3D with it's X Y and Z axis. From what I see in the video, there is only the X and Y. The images still look flat, not like the 3D effect we have in movies today - they don't have a depth perception.

You know what doesn't need you to darken a whole room to surround yourself with a video game space? Head-mounted displays.

Seriously, Microsoft, stop playing around with projectors and start making some virtual reality helmets, or you will get left behind by Oculus and Valve in the field of fully immersive VR, and by Google in the field of "plastering shiny pictures over your living room" kind of AR.

I'd much rather have a projector somewhere on my wall so I can sit down and play as opposed to having to fit a headset over my head.

I would much rather just put on a pair of goggles so I can sit down an play, as opposed to having to set up a projector system on my ceiling, and to flawlessly darken my whole living room every time I want to play.

See, I can also make technologies sound bothersome by adding entirely unnecessary loaded terms to them.

Shall I also throw in a futuristic picture with a photogenic 30something guy in a suit confidently smiling while looking through a sleek, lightweight VR visor, next to an amateur Holodeck prototype with experimenters tripping over wires while trying to align motion sensors and projectors with TV screens?

Entitled:I would much rather just put on a pair of goggles so I can sit down an play, as opposed to having to set up a projector system on my ceiling, and to flawlessly darken my whole living room every time I want to play.

See, I can also make technologies sound bothersome by adding entirely unnecessary loaded terms to them.

Shall I also throw in a futuristic picture with a photogenic 30something guy in a suit confidently smiling while looking through a sleek, lightweight VR visor, next to an amateur Holodeck prototype with experimenters tripping over wires while trying to align motion sensors and projectors with TV screens?

Yup. I have a pair of VR920's, which are older tech 3D goggles that are supported by things like Half Life 2, and seriously playing HL2 with those and a controller is pretty damn good, better than playing with a projector, massive screen, 3D screen, or any other gaming add-on. The problem is the technology isn't great on VR920's, head tracking for instance is pretty bad - but with the new goggles things should be much better.

Frankly, VR is the future of gaming, just like we were promised 20 years ago, I've got a projector, hell I've even got a PS3 driving cockpit with steering wheel etc in the cupboard under my stairs - and the VR stuff is the most fun, best experience - we just need the decent hardware and things will change direction towards VR and away from Kinect and all those other gimmocks.

The only downside is that you feel kinda anti-social playing with a controller and headset, you get sucked right into the game and theres a definite disconnection from the real world - even with my fairly basic setup. The next couple of years is gonna change gaming for good, and stupid cameras and projectors and peripheray visual peripherals won't be part of it. Let's just hope they price these new VR headsets fairly, so they take off this time.

I don't know. I kind of like the idea. It essentially is just extending the screen to beyond the confines of a television. One of the things I hate about FPS's is that I get sniped by some jerk who is just out of my field of vision who should have been in my peripheral vision, but TV screens don't have that. This gives you that. I don't think this will be a more "immersive" experience but it seems more useful that motion controls every could be. However, aside from the broader field of view, which is a good thing, I fail to conceive what else this could bring to the table that's practical. Maybe not getting blindsided by some jerk who's just off-screen is enough. Because looking around with a mouse or analogue stick is not natural or quick enough compared to just being able to glance over your shoulder to see the Creeper sneaking up on you. That assumes 360 degree imagery, which if this doesn't have that, it should. It's dumb if it doesn't.